You confuse the marriage ceremony with the legal (and civil) institution of marriage. You magnanimously concede gay people's right to hold a ritual as long as they can't get legally marry.

No one is preventing you from being a bigot, or teaching your children to be bigots (though I wish you wouldn't). You also see a conspiracy by gay people to destroy all that is good in the world. This is paranoia with no foundation in reality.

Robert Newsom wrote: …The issue is simply this: Why cannot two people, of the same gender, marry each other if they wish?
------
They can and it is done all the time. In fact, there is an entire cottage industry for “gay” weddings.

This has nothing to do with rights, equality, or marriage. Gays can already enter into civil unions if they want legal rights normaly found with marriage. Nothing is stopping homosexuals from pledging themselves to one another in private same-sex marriage ceremonies.

It is all about getting a government endorsement to normalize their behavior in the eyes of society. Once they get that legal and social approval, no one disagreeing with them will be safe. Schools, businesses, churches, and charities will be bludgeoned with threats and lawsuits until they abandon their convictions and agree to promote what is called “diversity.”

Ironically, the only view allowed by the coming diversity police is the narrow view that you must celebrate homosexuality. No other view will be tolerated. A federal court recently denied parents the right to know when homosexuality was being discussed in their Massachusetts schools because gay marriage is now legal there.

Some of these comments should be used as a modern day example of what black people had to go up against when demanding their rights.

Also, to comment on what someone on the first page says, by your reasoning the Supreme Court's ruling could have been used to ban interracial marriage as it was undertraditional and considered immoral by many people. Your reasoning denies the possibility that after the 20th century's lessons humanity might have progressed: that we might have gotten better at not hating people.

The topic is about gay marriage -- not about gays. Gays have been a fact of life since humans and their ancestors existed. The question is purely hypothetical without much precedent. Should gays be allowed to marry? I.e., use the same institution that has been practiced by members of the opposite sex for as long as that institution has been practiced? Now, what is the basis for such case? Just because a minority group wants to practice something as a "right," does that make it acceptable and a "right"? That is the problem -- and it is a problem of values. We do not give "rights" to all groups who claim their practices as their "right." Many examples are given (such as polygamy, incest, KKK, child marriage, female circumcision, etc). If we don't draw the line somewhere, pretending that all groups have a "right" to their practices, soon there will be no boundaries and will all sink. There have to be standards somewhere sometime.

The group of homosexuality becomes larger and larger. The topic of gay marriage has been brought up and discussed for a long time. Personally I am opposed to gay marriage only in that I was educated against it and had no experience about it. But fairly speaking, gay deserves to pursue their happiness even though he/she share the same gender with him/her just I chase gorgeous girls. I understand gay in Physiological perspective but cannot accept it Psychologically. There is a saying:"No absolute freedom exists. Some people's freedom is always based on some other people's agony."

"Carl Paladino, the Republican candidate for governor of New York, said that children should not be “brainwashed” into thinking that homosexuality was acceptable and that he would veto any gay-marriage bill. But that view places him in a minority."

I suppose he is in a minority in that his beliefs side with less than 50%, but the 48% that oppose is still significantly higher than the 42% that approve. I feel that the Economist is bending the statistics to promote their liberal agenda. Please stick to reporting about world economics, business, and politics that relate to such and stay off of these social/religious issues.

It is a great disappointment to see so many of the Economist's followers with such illiberal attitudes. I am unable to see how the issue can possibly have any effect at all on anyone other than those directly involved.

"As for legal precedent, gay marriage does not open the door for polygamy, but it does do so for adult incest."

Could you explain how? There are 10 countries with same sex marriage and none of them allow siblings to marry. Interestingly, incest is not illegal in India and neither is same sex marriage. Of course, both of these things are irrelevant, the two issues are not related to each other (couldn't resist a pun, sorry) in the first place.

Our western culture is the product of (largely based upon) the Christian religion. Like it or not, man is a religious creature. Yet today, our culture is in denial, reverting to a point lower than what was experienced before Christ came into the world. We pride ourselves in science, we say, yet propose an alternative that requires more faith than the biblical account, since the scientific method may not be applied to its hypothesis, and no known processes may produce “something” out of nothing. On the other hand, it IS logical for an all powerful God to create the universe. Further, the Scriptures state clearly that the things that are seen are temporal, while the unseen is eternal (1 Corinthians 4:18). It is not a matter of which comes first—but of what (Who) is first.

Again, I say, evolution is illogical. It is a part of the Humanist religion. Whether or not we CALL ourselves Humanist, America is headed in that direction. Humanism makes OUR desires supreme.

Now, we experiment within a realm that no culture has ventured into: openly calling the homosexual union holy (that is what marriage is: Holy Matrimony. Why not settle for “civil unions”? Let us be honest about this. If monetary parity is all that is in view, “marriage” is unnecessary. It is the right and wrong of the matter that troubles us. Homosexuals want to be told that they are RIGHT.)
Next step (already forecast within Scripture) calling ourselves God (John’s Apocalypse chapters 13 & 14).

I wish they told us how they attained the data, sample sizes, etc. Very important info, but journalists always seem to forget it, I'm assuming to convince us that their conclusions are more solid than they actually are.

Marriage has both religious and civil (legal) aspects. In secular societies it makes perfect sense in terms of the recognition of human rights that same-sex civil marriage be permitted alongside heterosexual marriage. In the religious context it also makes sense that individual religions prohibit the marriage of same sex couples in accordance with their beliefs. Both can exist side-by-side in secular societies such as the United States.

It makes perfect sense for those to whom the issue of the religious banning of same-sex marriage is important to distinguish that by "We were married in the church of ___."

Bluenoserboy, the trouble with your conclusion (that Portestants read the Bible and get there faith thereby) is this. Jesus words (as opposed to the words of others, both in the old and new testaments) are pretty straightforward. "All the law and all the prophets are this: love your God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself."

Nothing at all there about homosexuality. Admittedly, lots of other writers, before and after, were opposed. But if someone claims to be a Christian, one would expect that they would take Jesus words to heart.